DDX Alternatives?

[canoe]

Just curious,

Theres alot of people who seem to disagree with the whole DDX project. I was wondering for those privy to future naval planning.

1. Is there a need for a ship with a gun aramament like the DDX given todays missile technoligy?
2. Is there any merit to trying to 'stealth' something the size of a destroyer, given the added cost?
3. Would there be any benefit to changing the DDX to operate more like the LCS where it can have arrays of interchangable mission modules in place of its VLS and hangers.. etc?
4. Lastly, why haven't UAV's and surface/underwater unmanned combat drones been more of a priority for the navy given the airforce is showing the value of such assets?

[Galrahn]

1) I'll default to the opinions of those who understand the interworkings of operational requirements for Naval Fires Support. Iraq has produced a lot of new information regarding this subject, but I haven't seen anything that convinces me one side is more convincing than the other.

2) I think there is merit in trying, if it can be done. The French success with stealth at sea is noteworthy. From what I understand, when the French marketed the La Fayette-class to Saudi Arabia, one of the demonstrations reportedly involved the radar seeking terminal guidence systems of modern Exocet missiles being unable to locate the La Fayette-class at sea.

I have no idea how the stealth capability scaled to the export Al Riyadh class, but the Al Riyadh class is larger than a La Fayette-class.

3) For me the benefit of interchangable mission modules is still yet to be determined, particularly when there is no tender planned for actually changing mission modules out of a ship.

4) I would agree the Navy and Marine Corp is moving slow, although there is wisdom in taking it slow regarding the deployment of offensive combat capability to get it right. The Navy unmanned programs break down like this:

UAVs

Long-dwell, Standoff ISR - Global Hawk

Penetrating Surveillance/SEAD/Strike - UCAV based on X-45 and X-47 is still very much alive for the Navy

Tactical Surveillance and Targeting - Fire Scout UAV, Silver Fox UAV, Dragon Eye UAV, Dragon Warrior UAV, and Predator UAV

USVs

Mine Warfare, ISR/Force Protection, Port Protection, Precision Strike, and ASW - Spartan Scout USV with modular payload modules

Mine Warfare - the simi-submersable AN/WLD-1(V)1 Remote Minehunting System

UUVs

The current Navy plan sets forth nine high-priority missions for Navy UUVs:

(1) ISR
(2) mine countermeasures
(3) anti-submarine warfare
(4) inspection/identification
(5) oceanography
(6) communication/navigation network nodes (CN3)
(7) payload delivery
(8) information operations
(9) time-critical strike operations

These are divided into 4 catagories:

Man-portabable UUVs with diameters of 3 to 9 inches and weights of
25 to 100 pounds, for use in special-purpose ISR, expendable CN3, very-shallow-water MCM, and explosive ordnance disposal (EOD)

Lightweight vehicles with 12.75-inch diameters and weights of up to
500 pounds (the same as lightweight Navy torpedoes), for use in harbor
ISR, special oceanography, mobile CN3, network attack, and MCM area
reconnaissance

Heavyweight vehicles with 21-inch diameters and weights up to 3,000
pounds (the same as heavyweight Navy torpedoes), for use in tactical
ISR, oceanography, MCM, clandestine reconnaissance, and decoys

Large vehicles with diameters of 36 to 72 inches and weights of up to
20,000 pounds, for use in persistent ISR, ASW, long-range oceanography, mine warfare, special operations, EOD, and time-critical strike operations

The UUV Projects include:

Near-Term Mine Reconnaissance System (NMRS)
Long-Term Mine Reconnaissance System (LMRS)
Mission-Reconfigurable UUV (MRUUV)
Advanced Development UUV (ADUUV) - (prototype only)
Large-Diameter UUV (LDUUV) - (Seahorse UUV successor)
Remus (Remote Environmental Measuring Units)
BPAUV (Battlespace Preparation Autonomous Underwater Vehicle)
Manta

The Marine Corp is also using several unmanned ground vehicles.

[PubFather]

House Panel Seeks 2-Ship Limit On DD(X) Destroyer

By Rebecca Christie
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
Thursday 27 April 2006 19:55


WASHINGTON - (Dow Jones) - A House Armed Services Committee panel on Thursday proposed limiting the DD(X) destroyer to just two ships, which the Navy could start building next year.

U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., Projection Forces Subcommittee chairman, said DD(X) had grown too expensive to justify a full ship class. Since the program of record is now only seven ships, the Navy should focus on two ships with fancy new technology and save money for future projects.

"We really do need a technology demonstration platform," Bartlett said. He urged the Navy to build new propulsion systems and other technologies that may eventually be used in a decade on the CG(X) next-generation missile defense cruiser.

Bartlett's panel approved a defense authorization bill that would provide $2.6 billion for the DD(X) destroyer. It largely supports the Navy's desire to start two ships simultaneously, so General Dynamics Corp. (GD) and Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) both can begin work.

The bill would authorize full funding for one of the ships, while allowing detailed design contracts for the other. This would have the effect of allowing both contractors to move forward at the same pace, Bartlett said.

The two shipbuilders would benefit from another measure approved by the panel. If enacted, it would provide $400 million next year to start an additional Virginia-class submarine in 2009. This would allow the Navy to accelerate its transition to two submarines per year, which contractors say would bring down per-ship costs.

Aircraft programs also would shift if the panel's proposals become law. The subcommittee's mark would add $390 million for three additional C-17 cargo planes, using $300 million the administration had sought to begin line shutdown.

The remaining money for the extra C-17s would come from the Air Force's new tanker program.

Air Force officials say the service needs its first new tanker more than it needs additional C-17s. But Bartlett said the Air Force was moving so slowly on the new tanker program that it wouldn't be able to spend the money in 2007 anyway.

The subcommittee approved Bartlett's mark unanimously, with strong endorsements from panel Democrats. U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., praised the creative approach to fund two destroyers at once.

"Last year we in Congress required the Navy and the shipbuilding industry to use both surface combatant shipyards to build the DD(X). The Navy complied, and I believe this compromise allows us to be consistent in our direction to the department," Taylor said.

All of the House Armed Service Committee's subcommittees marked up the 2007 defense authorization bill this week. The entire bill is scheduled to go before the full committee next week.

# # #

Two DDX leading to perhaps 7 tops??

Either a bit worrying or a sensible descision given the cost of each one.

Sounds like they are intended to be more or less used as technology demonstrators which will then be used as the basis for the proposed CGX (of which they will no doubt launch approx 3 ships...)

Any views?

[Defcon 6]

There is a better alternative. Iowa reactivation. Or, if you like spiraling costs and bank breaking budgets you could go for the idea of a BB(X).

[PubFather]

Now theres a thought.... :)

[canoe]

Arleigh Burkes designed and built in the 1980's era are about 800 million each. Less if you buy them in larger numbers.

The DD(X) is looking to cost between $1.4 - 2.5 billion depending on the source before its even built. And thats before the project goes over budget, which it will.

If the current trends hold the ship could easily double in price, putting it into the $2.8 - 5 billion range. And I think I'm being optimisic about that estimate.

At that cost not even the U.S navy can afford many, and you could literally buy a fleet of warships for the cost of a couple of DD(X)'s.

[PubFather]

Arleigh Burkes designed and built in the 1980's era are about 800 million each. Less if you buy them in larger numbers.

The DD(X) is looking to cost between $1.4 - 2.5 billion depending on the source before its even built. And thats before the project goes over budget, which it will.

If the current trends hold the ship could easily double in price, putting it into the $2.8 - 5 billion range. And I think I'm being optimisic about that estimate.

At that cost not even the U.S navy can afford many, and you could literally buy a fleet of warships for the cost of a couple of DD(X)'s.

The trend does really seem that the two that have been ordered will be technology demonstrators - a bit like the two LCS i suppose.

I suspect - as others have said - that the new AAW destroyers will be more of an advanced DD51 than the Step-change of the DDX, with SPY-2 radar etc.

I wonder if the AGS will survive at all - it just doesnt convince me as a truly useful weapon (or at least a weapon that is truly necessary).

The CGX, on the other hand, may be a more like the DDX as currently planned, and be a TBMD defence system as much as anything else. I do look at USN current procurement and come up a bit short on surface ASW assets. I know DDX was going to be an effective ASW vessel... but 3-4 billion? Seems extremely expensive for that role, when you could have a good frigate with a VLS with 40 odd cells for Sea Sparrow/ASuW etc and add a helo and you have a capable vessel, for an 8 - 10th of the cost.

Oh wait a minute, you could just put an ASW module into an LCS...

[canoe]

I think the Navy needs to take a more serious look at ways to reduce cost. Part of the problem is the DD(X) includes all kinds of technoligy that hasen't been invented yet.

If they built a stealthy next gen destroyer hull, then used off the shelf componets for the less important systems. And for the critical systems simply upgraded the stuff they already have to put the ships systems together the cost would likely drop dramaticlly.

Basiclly you'd end up with a more stealthy upgraded Arleigh Burke with more launch tubes. In the end it'd probably cost you about 1.4 billions or so with cost overruns which is still a bargin compared to the current DDX design.

[Galrahn]

I think the Navy should build 2 DD(X) as technology demonstrators and build 2 different single class warships to test multiple design concepts. The Navy should budget cap the project at 9 billion for 2 ships, or an average 4.5 billion per ship, but 2 billion of the 9 billion would be budgeted as an R&D investment in the future surface fleet technogies, specifically for the CG(X) and DDG(X) technologies and modular design programs, so the actual cost to the shipbuilding budget is 3.5 billion per ship, which is the planned total anyway.

I know it is a lot of money, but if a high fixed price is set, it really opens up the options regarding a real surface combatant technology demonstrator, specifically allowing the Navy to test all of these very new technologies (even the ones that haven't been invented).

In historical terms, it would match the technological choices made in the late 1950s when the Navy built the USS Long Beach and USS Bainbridge. The USS Long Beach was the first nuclear powered warship, the first "all missile" ship, and served as a 'technology demonstrator' in shaping the US Navy. It served as a ship of the line, and so can the DD(X), but its purpose at design was to pave the way for the future fleet, which is what the DD(X) needs to become imo.

Both platforms can then operate as platforms that support new technologies, anything from TBMD systems, new gun systems, new sensor equipment, new engineering, and the Navy could even build them nuclear if they thought that would make a major impact in systems development for power purposes.

That would save between 16.5 and 23.5 billion shipbuilding costs over the next 6 years.

[PubFather]

I think the Navy should build 2 DD(X) as technology demonstrators and build 2 different single class warships to test multiple design concepts. The Navy should budget cap the project at 9 billion for 2 ships, or an average 4.5 billion per ship, but 2 billion of the 9 billion would be budgeted as an R&D investment in the future surface fleet technogies, specifically for the CG(X) and DDG(X) technologies and modular design programs, so the actual cost to the shipbuilding budget is 3.5 billion per ship, which is the planned total anyway.

I know it is a lot of money, but if a high fixed price is set, it really opens up the options regarding a real surface combatant technology demonstrator, specifically allowing the Navy to test all of these very new technologies (even the ones that haven't been invented).

In historical terms, it would match the technological choices made in the late 1950s when the Navy built the USS Long Beach and USS Bainbridge. The USS Long Beach was the first nuclear powered warship, the first "all missile" ship, and served as a 'technology demonstrator' in shaping the US Navy. It served as a ship of the line, and so can the DD(X), but its purpose at design was to pave the way for the future fleet, which is what the DD(X) needs to become imo.

Both platforms can then operate as platforms that support new technologies, anything from TBMD systems, new gun systems, new sensor equipment, new engineering, and the Navy could even build them nuclear if they thought that would make a major impact in systems development for power purposes.

That would save between 16.5 and 23.5 billion shipbuilding costs over the next 6 years.

Why arent you in charge of the USN?

How urgent is the need to replace the Tico's and older Burkes? What sort of hull life is left?

[Galrahn]

How urgent is the need to replace the Tico's and older Burkes? What sort of hull life is left?

CG-52 is listed as 21.2 years old. CG-55 is listed as 19.9 years old.
http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/CG52.htm
http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/CG55.htm

DDG-51 is listed as 16.7 years old.
http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/DDG51.htm

Both ships have a ship life of 35 years.

CG-52 retires in 2019, but since the Navy requirement for Cruisers is 19 and they currently have 22, the 4th CG to retire (CG-55), which is the first that needs to be replaced, is in 2021.

DDG-51 retires in 2024.

The fast build rate for the DDG-51s creates a problem in the overall size of the surface fleet later down the road though, and current 40-year ship building models show the Navy has only 36 DDG(X) ships when the last of the 62 DDG-51 retires around 2044. That is based on the 313-ship plan though, which I am often very critical of.

[PubFather]

Thanks for the info - the need for DDX, CGX hulls in the water isnt as pressing as I thought (although close enough to be a concern).

Sounds very light on hulls - sometimes I suspect the bean counters are more concerned adding up VLS cells than in realising that ships do actually have to in a number of different places, and the ocean is quite a large place.... Not to mention re-fits/servicing...

Should priorities change - how feasible is SLEP'ing some of the newer 51's/Tico's?

[Dago]

Arleigh Burkes designed and built in the 1980's era are about 800 million each. Less if you buy them in larger numbers.

The DD(X) is looking to cost between $1.4 - 2.5 billion depending on the source before its even built. And thats before the project goes over budget, which it will.

If the current trends hold the ship could easily double in price, putting it into the $2.8 - 5 billion range. And I think I'm being optimisic about that estimate.

At that cost not even the U.S navy can afford many, and you could literally buy a fleet of warships for the cost of a couple of DD(X)'s.

However, it has more to do with the manpower requirments set fourth. What good are all those Burkes if you don't even have the manpower to field them nor the capacity to fill even half there VLS tubes?

[B.Smitty]

Sounds very light on hulls - sometimes I suspect the bean counters are more concerned adding up VLS cells than in realising that ships do actually have to in a number of different places, and the ocean is quite a large place.... Not to mention re-fits/servicing...

Even the "bean counters" are looking at the problem closer than this.

Transforming the Navy's
Surface Combatant Force
(Congressional Budget Office)

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4130

[Galrahn]

Which brings up another Alternative

Should priorities change - how feasible is SLEP'ing some of the newer 51's/Tico's?

The CG mid-life modernization program is about to begin. At $228 million it is a decent upgrade that includes CIWS Blk 1B, SPQ-9B, SQQ-89A(V)15, ESSM, among other systems improvement. Like i said, it is 'decent.'

The DDG-51 mid-life modernization program has been proposed. I think it is pretty pathetic personally, with only $78 million per ship being invested in the upgrades.

I think it is important the Navy makes maximum use of the existing CGs and DDGs and goes for the full 35 years for all platforms. The only way to do that is to maintain them in a way that not only keeps them ready to deploy, but relevant in deployment. The mid-life modernization program is traditionally a big step in that direction, but for the Navy to design a cheap modernization plan for the DDGs in favor of only 7 additional DD(X) platforms is another example how the 313-ship plan is flawed, considering 62 of the 88 surface combatants in the 313-ship plan are the DDG-51s being ignored.

Example, the DDG-51 modernization fails to add CEC, any SPY-1D upgrades, no SPQ-9B for fire support, no new ESSM, and sonar’s are not upgraded to SQQ-89A(V)15.

If the Navy changes the DD(X) as is, it can do the following, add to existing proposed modernization plans by spending an average of 350 million per DDG-51 (thats average for all 62, and not all ships will need new hardware either), the DD(X) is so expensive the Navy would still save money:

- Build 2 DD(X) Technology Demonstrators for R&D to maintain design effort for CG(X).

- Outfit all 84 AEGIS/VLS ships with:

• AEGIS OA, VLS OA, CEC, common system signal processors

• Mk160 Mod X GCS, 5”/62s, and magazine mods to handle ERGM/BTERM

• SPQ-9B and ESSM

• CIWS 1B with full sensor integration

• A common non-cooperative ID systems

• A common, upgraded ESM system

• SQQ-89A(V)15 with MTA

- Currently the TBMD program upgrades 18 of the 84 AEGIS/VLS ships to be capable of making mid-course and terminal intercepts of ballistic missiles (SM-3). The Navy should upgrade all 84 and pursue an interceptor (SM-6).

- Pursue a Navy Integrated Fire Control Counter-air (NIFCA) upgrade for all AEGIS/VLS ships to insure pacing the fleet defenses against supersonic anti-surface missile threats.

- Fully upgrade all hangers to support MH-60R (and perhaps UAV integration in new DDG-51s)

- Expand UUV deployment capability beyond the DDG-91 - DDG-96

All of this for 84 ships for slightly less money than the cost of building the last 5 (DDX) ships.

The DD(X) isn't a NSFS issue. A battery of 106, 5”/62s capable of firing ERGM/BTERM spread across 84 platforms is more flexible than and a battery of 14, 6” AGSs on 7 DD(X)s.

If the Navy does this, no matter what the CG(X) or DDG(X) look like, the current fleet would remain relevant as apart of any future battle force through the full life of each ship, not to mention establishes the core baseline technology sets for the future surface combatant force.

That core baseline minimum would be higher than any other Navy in service today or the forseeable future, giving the Navy at least a full decade to persue new technologies for the future fleet using the 2 DD(X) technology demonstrators.